Customer Reviews

The Federal Vision

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

There has been some strong reaction in Reformed churches about the recent Pastors Conferences at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana. Those who sound the alarm say the conference speakers have crossed the line in serious ways, and should be rebuked for their errant teaching. Those who have spoken at the conferences insist that their critics have generally not shown a clear understanding of what has been said and taught, are too quick to label them as "sacramentalists", and wrongly conflate their teaching with the New Perspective on Paul or other controversial schools of thought. In this book the conference participants present their cases so that those who are wondering what the controversy is about will be able to consider what these men have to say first-hand. Personally, I don't see how anyone who is concerned about the Auburn Avenue conferences can read these essays and still be on the warpath. You may disagree. But who can seriously claim that such teaching must absolutely put these men outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy? These essays are well-reasoned, Biblically sound, solidly Reformed, and full of insight and understanding that will help the church be all that the Lord Jesus has called her to be.

I found this collection of essays on a locus of topics like the covenant, sacraments, and the objectivity of salvation to be refreshing and exegetically based. James B. Jordan's essay developing the themes of maturity from Genesis 2 and 3 is worth the price of the book. It is on the field of exegesis of texts like John 15 and Genesis 2 and 1 Corinithians 10 that the discussion should really focus, and this book lays the groundwork for that discussion.

Highly stimulating. Even if you disagree with some of the essays (as I do), you should find food for thought. An excellent book for anyone who wonders why so many times Reformed theology offers excuses or special pleading about the way the Bible itself sometimes speaks of salvation on sacrmantal efficacy.

Paranoia about the "trajectory" this book's writers are on should be avoided. What they say is what they say, and the "catholicism" promoted is nothing other than that of the Apostles' Creed.

Those who think John Murray's booklet on the Free Offer of the Gospel was a sop to Arminians will not like this book. Those who are followers of gnostic mystical occultists who they claim to be Calvinists definitely won't like this book.

Having already purchased and read 'The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons' I wondered whether there was much that this book could contribute to the ongoing debate over the 'Federal Vision' theology. My initial doubts were soon set to rest when I started to read the book. There is a lot of original material here. My copy has already received its fair share of underlining and is beginning to manifest the evidence of extensive use.

'The Federal Vision' includes nine essays from eight different contributors. The careful reader will find much rewarding and valuable material in these pages. Two essays in particular stand out - James Jordan's essay on merit and maturity and Peter Leithart's essay on justification. Jordan's essay alone is well worth the price of the book.

Many of the critics of the 'Federal Visionists' will do well to observe the thoughtful and constructive theological work that is displayed in various portions of this volume. This constructive work seems to be indicative of a wish on the part of the participants in this movement to avoid become trapped in the sterility of an entrenched position. This volume consists of a number of distinct voices within an ongoing debate; anyone expecting to find a definitive presentation of THE Federal Vision theology will, I believe, be disappointed. The attentive reader will soon appreciate that the various contributing authors to this volume do not form a homogenous group. What they hold in common is a commitment to the Word of God, a love for the historic Reformed faith and a desire to address certain problems that they perceive in many forms of modern Reformed theology and practice. The result is a book that will challenge preconceptions and stimulate people to think.

Whilst, after consideration, I disagree with a number of the positions outlined in this book, I have benefitted greatly from engaging with them. I trust that there will be further books produced on this subject to explore other aspects of the continuing discussion on the Federal Vision.

First, as an aside, I find it fascinating to note that of the earlier reviewers who assigned one star to this book and slammed it, none of them gave any indication of having read it. Fascinating.

Anyway: the term "Federal Vision" was borrowed from the name of a conference given a few years ago in Monroe, LA. It was not used as a basis to name a movement, but as a reminder of the covenantal vision of the fathers of the Reformed faith.

In this book, you will find a great deal of three things: historical work, pastoral theology, and exegetical/biblical-theological reflection.

1. Historical work. On this, see especially Mark Horne's essay, showing the robust view of the Lord's Supper that was espoused by the early generations of the Reformed, as well as Rich Lusk's careful and insightful review of the trend away from the significance of paedobaptism as an outcome of the revivalism engendered by the two Great Awakenings.

2. Pastoral theology. John Barach's essay ("Covenant and Election"), for example, essentially amounts to a plea to employ the biblical language and form of address in speaking to the people of God, rather than (as is all too commonly done) putting that language to death with a thousand qualifications, so that its biblical "punch" is virtually lost altogether.

3. Stimulating and important exegetical and biblical-theological reflection. Peter Leithart's essay, "Judge Me, O God," is alone worth the price of the book. In this essay, Leithart digs deeply into the Old Testament to provide the conceptual setting for the New Testament theme of justification. While grasping firmly the Reformation view of justification as forensic (an act of the divine courtroom), Leithart also demonstrates that biblical judges were called upon, not to make "naked verdicts," but to enforce justice (hence the title of the essay). Thus we must be careful not to impoverish the richness of the biblical doctrine of justification. It is emphatically a forensic doctrine - and equally emphatically, it is not flat, but thick with significance.

There are other searching biblical-theological studies here as well. James Jordan's "Merit Versus Maturity" is an important, thought-provoking reconsideration of how the Adamic covenant has often been construed. Rich Lusk's second essay, "New Life and Apostasy: Hebrews 6:4-8 as Test Case" is an exemplary attempt by a Calvinist to wrestle with a difficult passage about apostasy.

Despite the charges levelled by some, this is a thoroughly Protestant book written by men who are attempting to do justice to biblical language and biblical concepts. You will not find a trace of any notion that baptism has some sort of magical power; you will find, however, a reaffirmation of the early Reformed view that baptism is an objective event by which God really does incorporate people into Christ (after all, the Church is His body). And you will certainly find that none of these men are all that sympathetic to a "hyper-spiritual" view of the Church that makes its visible manifestation a mere shadow of spiritual reality. But the point of underscoring baptism as a means of assurance is not due to thinking baptism is magical; rather, it is due to an assurance in God's promise. These men affirm, in line with classical Protestantism, that the sacraments are God's Word made visbible - indeed, enacted. So rather than drawing attention away from Christ, baptism points us precisely to Him.

This book is not destined to be a classic. Multi-contributor volumes tend to be somewhat uneven in quality, although this book is certainly better than most in that respect. But what this book is, is a very valuable and engaging work that evidences devotion to the Scriptures and the Reformed faith, as well as pastoral concern for the people of God. Highly recommended for those willing to think and be challenged by Scripture.

There is a big storm of controversy surrounding some of the things these authors propose, but so many folks are drawing firm conclusions without actually reading what these men have written.

After reading their essays, you may still not agree, but at least you have saved yourself from forming an uninformed opinion.

I'm just a layman and not a theologian, but I believe that the paper by James B. Jordan included here is worth the price of the book alone.

The rest is just good Biblical-theology icing on the cake. Lusk and Leithart do an amazing job of fleshing out a thoroughly-Reformed and confessional view of baptism and justification. Wilkins, Wilson and Schlissel are here in all of their steady and consistent easy-to-read-and-absorb goodness. Horne and Barach are not to be overlooked for their witty and erudite work.

But get this for the Jordan.

Finally, after much thought, time, and effort, on this controversial subject of the Federal Vision, I must give a few thoughts. Unfortunately for me, mostly because I am in favor of almost all that has been said in this work (and I will have record of being sympathetic to these supposedly great heretics); and perhaps I still might misunderstand some (pardon the awkward sentence structure). By that I mean that my name will be eternalized with this name (Federal Vision / Auburn Avenue Theology) on the internet. Unfortunately, as well, for those who have slandered these men, their names and slander will also last for a long time here on the internet. And yet, perhaps, although they have slandered godly men, I still believe they will have an advocate before the father, namely Jesus Christ who took upon himself the sins of those he predestined to eternal salvation, those who are found to be of faith in Christ.

To be honest I was intially against this, having equated the whole movement with the New Perspective on Paul (according to the recent seminary graduate's news of the General Assemby, my pastor; although I do not really blame him for his judgement, since on the word of others he thoughts that the charges were true Even, then I came across Douglas Wilson's work on marraige and headship, as well as his debate with Hitchens. His theology seemed pretty solid after such readings, yet I had my doubts. With the failure of the church to help young men such as me,I have found great wisdom in the writings of these men awkwardly in place of the church that they so highly praise and lament. So while I thought they were believers and were good men of the faith I still had my doubts to their "Reformed Credentials" (is it sad that I laugh now about this because I think I should be thinking in terms of the Credentials according to their faithfulness to the Word? I do consider myself to be a High Calvinist because I think that is what the scriptures reveal (in that High Calvinists are right to affirm the Eternal Predestination of God for all of things for all of time).
Being dealt with by the church in terms of my eternal election did not help me grow, for I believed I was eternally elect, I still think rightly so, but that growth in the Lord and faithfulness to His commandments does not help the recent convert (such as I was) who desires to grow by treating him either as eternally reprobate or elect. These writers are right in writing against what they see as antinomianism and strong individualism in the Church and culture. For I must say that I was, and was helped by reading works such as Douglas Wilson's and other Puritans to see this in myself and to repent of it. The church (or assembly) that I went to in College was not a help in growing young men and women, a recent convert such as I had no where to turn to for to be watched over and shepherded. The elders only seemed to care for those who were members along with their families. And if there was a problem the RUF pastor (or college Christian group pastor) would be the one who would deal with the college students with problems. Needless to say if it wasn't for the Spirit working within me, even in my struggles and lack of help, I would have abandoned my faith, proved to be a reprobate. Discipline and Care for all members of Christ's Body was needed in my case and will continue to be needed for all of Christ's Bride. These men helped me see that the church in many ways rejects the younger, in the case of their veering towards the Baptists, and rejecting the new converts in assuming that the Lord is going to make a mature Christian upon conversion if he is of age. Works are relevant, but working out of faith, looking towards Christ. These men have made this clear.

These men and their associated congregations helped me understand what a mature Christian is, how the covenants of the Old Testament are relevant to me now in the reality of Jesus Christ our Lord. I am redeemed of the Lord, I love the Lord, I rejoice in Him, and I follow him by faith, I am justified by faith alone. This is not a faith alone in mere words or doctrinal affirmation, but a living faith, for faith is rooted in the love of God, and No man can stop God's love, no man can stop the working of God's grace.
This is a faith that rejoices, that responds, that is obedient, that boasts only in the free grace of the Lord.

Their view of the sacraments finally helped me understand the modern Reformed view of the sacraments versus what I had been reading in Calvin and others. The Reformed view is mostly Zwinglian in terms of the Lords Supper and mostly Baptistic in view of Baptism. This means that there is no sense of mystery in the sacraments, no enjoyment, no celebration of Christ's work. It is a solemn symbol in which so many are witheld and castagated from (faithful children are denied because we think in Enlightenment, Rationalistic terms against the World as revealed by God's Word, as it really is)... pardon the mispellings...
Baptism is seen as a mere sprinkling of water that accomplishes nothing, except admittance to a visible church, which is "not the true church" as some say. Baptism in the Reformed camp thus is rightly seen by the authors, in some cases, to be just a held over ritual, an initiation, which means nothing except that we hope they have an experience to validate their baptism.

To those who think that those who are following them are going back to Rome, and yet praise Augustine, ought to look again at his letters against Pelagius. In these letters there is much talk about being baptized into Christ. As for me I left Rome for the free grace offer in the Gospel, the sufficiency of Christ's finished atoning work for my behalf, the redemption only in Christ, and the sufficiency of his eternal inerrant Word.

These men affirm over and over the Predestination of God, and that only the eternally Predestined will be ultimately saved. Yet they refuse, and rightly to interpret the sciptures through the lens of the TULIP or the Westminster Confession. This is anachronism at its worst. As if God's Word would yield to mere human categories at a certain time period to understand His Word in Totality for all Time.

I do have my reservations as to what Schlissel thinks of Romans 3:10-18. Although I concede, that I might still be misunderstanding him. I think that this condemnation is to all men who are not under Christ. And that all men, Christ being out of the picture hypothetically, would be under sin, under condemnation, deserving the wrath of God. For righteousness is only from God.

Again pardon my mispellings and my grammar, I am but a product of my generation's reliance of spellcheck.

I hope this is useful to all. For the record I believe that I am made righteous before God, not by any of my works, but only by Christ's own faithful obediance to death on the cross on my behalf, in which God has united me to Christ by faith (which is by his Spirit alone, and not by my own works). By God's grace alone, by faith alone in Christ's finished, sufficient work alone (not on the basis of works or future works, but a faith that responds to love by love because of being rooted and united to Love, which is Christ).

This is an interesting book. The folks who wrote it claim to be solidly in the historical reformed camp. They apparently perceive two problems in contemporary reformed churches; 1) An implicit-leaning-to-explicit acceptance of the model of MERE individualism and 2) a failure to realize that Christianity is broader than just the reformed version. Neither point is, to my mind, all that objectionable. The covenant community of the Body of Christ needs to be recognized and celebrated vertically (parents and children), horizontally (cross-denominations), and historically (the traditions of the saints in glory). The authors of this book have done an heroic job in restoring the joy of that celebration.

God bless and protect them in their efforts. They will need it.

Much has happened since this book was written. The essays' authors and their supporters claimed to be reclaiming the Reformation. In the last several years, seven orthodox Reformed denominations and a number of seminaries and other bodies have studied these issues carefully and decided quite the opposite -- denouncing Federal Vision as a serious theological error.

This book provides a some good detail of the Federal Vision views. Orthodox Reformed folks will easily recognize the errors in the various authors' views of the covenants, justification, sanctification, union with Christ, the sacraments, and the final judgment to name a few areas. Federal Visionists routinely cherry-pick quotes from the Reformers to support their points. As you read such citations, I strongly recommend going to the quoted source and reading the citations in their original context - not just the immediate paragraph but also the whole of the original work. You'll most often find the original Reformer meant something quite different than the Federal Visionist intends.

Neither do the Scriptures support these essays. Many Scriptural citations accompany their arguments, but again, go back and read the immediate context, the chapter context, and the context of those Scriptures in redemptive history and the system of the Reformed faith. For a theological system to stand, it must be consistent across the whole of Scripture. Federal Vision is not. Compare these essays with John Brown of Haddington's Systematic Theology available here on Amazon and you'll see a marked difference in how Scripture is used and tied together across the whole Word of God.

If we are to address errors in the church today, we must understand the erroneous views as presented by their advocates. This book serves that end well. After careful study and open debate, seven orthodox, Reformed denominations have rejected the Federal Vision. All the denominational votes of which I am personally aware were virtually unanimous. One does well to read these essays with that knowledge always before them.

The various authors consistently demonstrate a deep mis(or non)-understaning of the faith. Regeneration by external ritual baptism is empty. It is off-the-mark in dangerous ways for leaders of churches and institutions of learning, like these men appear to be, to give anybody the impression that they are saved - as they do in this book - by the ritual of water baptism. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Salvation is effected by the Word and the Spirit within an individual, not through a mediating corporate/collective church body or 'sacrament'. The theology expressed in this book is old and rears its head usually at a time when God's Plan is at a crossroads or interval. Faith comes from God, not baptism. True baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit within one giving one a new nature. A renewed soul. The environment this takes place in (or the effecting agent) is the Word of God itself. Read the Word of God, and do it humbly; being God-centered rather than proud and man-centered. Now that these various theologians and church leaders have decided on calling their 'new' movement 'the federal vision' it can tidily be dumped into the wastebasket of history with all other man-centered, proud, unBiblical and just simply dead wrong theologies and false gospels. A very strong non-recommendation for this book.